[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA RAILWAYS.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[2560]
No. 1.
[January 23.]
SECTION 2.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received January 23.)
(No. 17.)
Peking, January 23, 1908. (Telegraphic. P.)
WITH reference to your telegram No. 13 of the 20th instant, I have the honour to inform you that the objections of the Japanese Minister to the proposed railway to Fa Ku Men are based entirely on paragraph 3 of the Protocol referred to in your telegram No. 4 of the 7th instant, which he says is a binding instrument signed by the Chinese, and does not exclude the region west of the Liao from its scope. He further informed me that the Japanese railway authorities in Manchuria are clearly of opinion that traffic would be diverted from South Manchurian Railway by the proposed line, with its prospect of extension to Tsitsihar. To the arguments adduced in the last paragraph of my telegram No. 9 of the 8th instant, and to my remark that all foreign participation in railway construction in Manchuria would be practically excluded by the interpretation which it was sought to put on the Protocol, the Japanese Minister replied that such was the case, but we too had a non-competition clause in our Canton-Kowloon Agreement and occupied a privileged position as regards railways at Hankow.
I agreed, on his suggestion, and with the view of seeing if any arrangement is possible, to try to induce the Chinese, whom he charges with acting in bad faith, to submit their proposals to him.
I am repeating this telegram to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tôkið.
[2815-2]
250
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA RAILWAYS.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[2560]
No. 1.
[January 23.]
SECTION 2.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received January 23.)
(No. 17.)
Peking, January 23, 1908. (Telegraphic. P.)
WITH reference to your telegram No. 13 of the 20th instant, I have the honour to inform you that the objections of the Japanese Minister to the proposed railway to Fa Ku Men are based entirely ou paragraph 3 of the Protocol referred to in your He further telegram No. 4 of the 7th instant, which he says is a binding instrument signed by the Chinese, and does not exclude the region west of the Liao from its scope. informed me that the Japanese railway authorities in Manchuria are clearly of opinion that traffic would be diverted from South Manchurian Railway by the proposed line, with its prospect of extension to Tsitsihar. To the arguments adduced in the last paragraph of my telegram No. 9 of the 8th instant, and to my remark that all foreign participation in railway construction in Manchuria would be practically excluded by the interpretation which it was sought to put on the Protocol, the Japanese Minister replied that such was the case, but we too had a non-competition clause in our Canton-Kowloon Agreement and occupied a privileged position as regards railways at Hankow.
I agreed, on his suggestion, and with the view of seeing if any arrangement is possible, to try to induce the Chinese, whom he charges with acting in bad faith, to submit their proposals to him.
I am repeating this telegram to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tôkið.
(2815 -2]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.